ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
The opportunities for and barriers to antimicrobial resistance surveillance by lot quality assurance sampling in livestock: Findings from interviews with stakeholders in Germany.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biosafety, biosecurity and antimicrobial resistance containment in Kenya: A One Health scoping review of national and subnational systems.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bacterial pathogens exhibiting antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are a health threat for humans, companion animals and livestock. Surveillance underpins appropriate AMR responses, but can be biased or expensive. Surveillance using Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) has shown promise in human health settings; more evidence on its applicability and acceptability in livestock populations is needed. Drawing on in-depth interviews, this article examines stakeholder perspectives on LQAS for AMR surveillance in livestock in Germany. Methods: Twenty-five stakeholders were interviewed. They included employees of German universities, research institutes, Federal animal health services / veterinary laboratories, animal producer associations, and veterinarians. Detailed notes of online interviews were analyzed using a framework approach. Results: Respondents were concerned about AMR in livestock and also about restrictions on antibiotic treatment options. They described the multifaceted, legally prescribed data gathering for farmers to monitor antibiotic consumption and the widespread use of antibiograms to guide treatment in Germany. Respondents saw potential benefits of LQAS for AMR surveillance, in terms of reducing the sample sizes and the need for antibiotic susceptibility tests, but there were questions about surveilling commensal bacteria, with concerns about it leading to further restrictions on antibiotic consumption and driving food production overseas. Conclusion: An LQAS approach to AMR surveillance requires locally responsive guidance to alleviate concerns about further restriction of treatment options (and about animal welfare). Given existing data collection, recording and reporting burden for farmers and veterinarians, early engagement is needed to agree the rationale and benefits of LQAS, particularly if surveilling resistance in commensal bacteria is considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.